Three Straights and You’re Out in Gay Softball League

By GREG BISHOP


The five ballplayers summoned before a protest committee at the Gay Softball World Series stood accused of cheating. Their alleged offense: heterosexuality.

Inside a small room, surrounded by committee members and other softball officials, the players said they were interrogated about their sexual orientation. Confusion reigned. According to court records, one player declined to say whether he was gay or straight but acknowledged being married to a woman. Another answered yes to both gay and heterosexual definitions. A third asked if bisexual was acceptable and was told, “This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series.”

Ultimately, the committee ruled that three of the five were “nongay” and stripped the team of its second-place finish.

That decision, at the 2008 competition near Seattle, provoked a federal lawsuit against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance, which governs the softball World Series, and compelled the alliance to change its rules.

The case has also escalated into a flashpoint in organized gay sports. Sports leagues that exclude members based on sexual orientation — which is generally legal — are watching how the courts address the vexing question at the heart of this dispute: how should a group determine who qualifies as gay?

“It definitely takes an organization down a rocky path,” said Jennifer Pizer, the legal director at the Williams Institute, a policy group focusing on sexual orientation law. “It can be quite intrusive, awkward at best.”

Dozens of gay leagues exist throughout the country for most sports, from flag football to volleyball, with tens of thousands of participants. The Gay Softball World Series is celebrating its 35th anniversary this summer, and several hundred teams from around the country vie for the title. Leagues often allow some heterosexual participants, in the spirit of inclusiveness, but still wrestle with rules regarding the limits on heterosexual players.

The National Gay Flag Football League, for example, has long used the honor system to impose its heterosexual limit (20 percent of each roster for the annual Gay Bowl).

“We’ll look at our rule later this year, and we’ll ask ourselves the same questions: Is this the right rule? The right approach to a complex topic?” said Shane Kinkennon, the founder of a Denver flag football league and the national association’s commissioner.

“The L.G.B.T. community has become increasingly sensitive to the way people self-identify their gender expression,” he added, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance limits the number of heterosexual players teams can have. The rule — jokingly referred to as the “straight cap” — is often a subject of spirited debate, and over time it has changed, from barring heterosexual players outright to the current policy of two per team.

At the 2008 World Series, the application of the rule prompted more debate.

A protest was lodged during the championship game — the source remains unclear — against D2, a team from San Francisco. The hearing started “immediately following their championship loss,” according to court documents.

The plaintiffs — Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ — contend that the hearing was intrusive, a notion disputed by the defense. They are seeking to have the team’s second-place finish restored and to recover more than $75,000 each in damages for emotional distress. Through their lawyers, the players declined to be interviewed.

Roger Leishman, chief counsel for the defense, said that he spoke to all but one protest committee member and that each said any player who claimed to be bisexual would have been considered gay. The defense insists that bisexuality never came up. Instead, Mr. Leishman said, the players provided evasive answers to challenge the rule limiting the number of heterosexuals per team.

“Some of the things the plaintiffs have said are just not true,” Mr. Leishman said. “They characterize it as a windowless room. It wasn’t. They characterized the questions as intrusive. They weren’t. It’s the Gay Softball World Series. It’s not shocking that someone would ask whether or not you’re gay.”

Three of the accused players were ruled “nongay,” although they said there were multiple votes and even a discussion about the definitions.

After D2 lost its appeal, the three plaintiffs filed suit. This month, in United States District Court in Seattle, Judge John C. Coughenour ruled that the gay alliance could legally limit the number of heterosexual participants, just as the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts of America could exclude gays.

But Judge Coughenour scheduled a trial for Aug. 1 to further examine what happened at the hearing and whether the players were victims of discrimination.

Ms. Pizer, of the Williams Institute, and other experts argue that sexual orientation is more complicated than a simple gay-or-straight definition. Experts describe a fuller spectrum of human sexuality, influenced by how a person acts, thinks and self-identifies at a given time. Those factors could change over time, Ms. Pizer said.

The problem with a narrow definition, said Christopher Stoll of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represents the plaintiffs, is how to define “gay.”

“How do you prove if someone is gay or straight?” he said. “One of the most disturbing things about the league’s position in this case is that there’s only one way of being gay, or one view of being gay. The definition did not include bisexual, or transgendered. Our clients break the stereotypes of what gay is supposed to be.”

Since the lawsuit was filed, the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance has changed its definition of gay to include bisexual and transgender people. It also clarified that it would determine sexual orientation by self-declaration.

The implications of the lawsuit stretch beyond the clarification, said Helen Carroll, the sports project director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. She said she hoped it would spotlight the often-overlooked issues that face bisexual athletes and highlight the movement in gay sports leagues away from such limits.

But not everyone agrees that the rule is outdated. Chris Balton, the assistant commissioner of the gay athletic alliance, explained that he came out late in life and that a gay softball league provided support after his partner committed suicide.

“His family didn’t want me to be part of the funeral,” Mr. Balton said. “Those guys got me through that. That’s why I love this organization. That’s what the rule means. If we allow it to be open, it would be just another softball tournament.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/sp...gewanted=print

I'd say they deserved it. If organizations such as the Boy Scouts can discriminate against gays, gays should be agle to make organizations that discriminate against straights. It's only fair.

While I think it was wrong to get rid of them, imagin if somehow eventually all the gays were phased out and it consisted of straight guys ... it's a GAY team for a reason.

Still though they could have let them stay on, just clamped down on any future hetro's in the cupboard!

Well, they were the winning team, and disqualifying them was probably important for the accusers.

The article said they were stripped of their 2nd place finish.

My view is that yes, it is a gay league but that doesn't mean all players should be outright gay. It may lose it's status though if more then 50% of players are were defined as not gay so, easiest answer would be to make sure more then 51% of players are gay, so then it's a gay team (so a cap basically). Although, saying that a bisexual person is not allowed to compete is just wrong and punishing the entire team is worse.

Everyone is bisexual. Even people who claimed to be outright straight and gay. (This is my personal opinion, regularly disupted by gay and straight people alike).

If they're not gay they shouldn't be on a gay team.
But things like that are very hard to prove I guess.

They should sue them for lack of tolerance and unequal treatment.

it would be awkward for the hetro when it's showa!!!! time' but i think its quite unfair for the hetro to be kicked out like a lonely old bean!!

If you have a way to properly argument this opinion, you would greately help your position.

They already have, and they lost due to precedence. Since courts ruled that the Boy Scouts can exclude gays, obviously gays have the right to exclude heterosexuals from their organisations. It's only fair after all.

Oh ok then :) As long as law works both way without vocal minority getting preferential treatment I'm fine with that.